Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records made in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005 dated 08.05.2009 on the file of the 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai and to quash the same. 2. The 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, in the impugned order dated 08.05.2009 in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005 [filed by the Writ Petitioner/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore], has, inter alia, observed that '... The Respondent worker in his written statement filed during the domestic enquiry has also stated that the cash bag was not checked and had they checked the cash bag they could have found no excess cash and that could have disproved the charges. The enquiry officer in his report has not referred this vital issue. Since these above aspects were not at all considered by the enquiry officer I find that there is perverse finding in the enquiry. The action of the applicant Management based on the perverse finding and dismissing the respondent workman is not sustainable.' 3.That apart, the 1st Respondent, in the impugned order dated 08.05.2009 in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005, has added that ''The procedure of checking of the cash bag to find out whether there is any excess cash to arrive at a proper conclusion has not been done. If excess cash is found, then there can be a possibility of misappropriation. The available evidence before me shows that there is no cogent and acceptable evidence on record to make out that the worker is guilty of the misconduct charged' and resultantly, refused to accord approval for the dismissal of the 2nd Respondent/ Conductor. 4. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 08.05.2009 made in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005 passed by the 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 08.05.2009 is against law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case. 5. 4. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 08.05.2009 made in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005 passed by the 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 08.05.2009 is against law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation, the 1st Respondent, after perusing the facts, held that the dismissal was not an intended to victimise the 2nd Respondent/ Workman and having found that the Petitioner/Management complied all the mandatory requirements prescribed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought not to have dismissed the Approval Petition filed by the Petitioner/Corporation. 6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation strenuously contends that the 2nd Respondent/Workman was on duty on 24.09.2001 on the route Gandhipuram-Sulur Aero, at about 5.50 AM, the bus was checked by the Checking Inspectors and it was found that the 2nd Respondent/ Workman had collected a ticket fare of Rs.2.25 from one passenger and not issued the ticket. Therefore, for the purported misconduct, the Checking Inspectors issued a spot memo and that the Petitioner/ Corporation as per Clause 14(d) and (ab) of the Standing Orders issued a charge memo dated 30.09.2001, for which the 2nd Respondent/Workman submitted his explanation, inter alia, mentioning that the driver of the bus applied sudden brake, in and by which, he sustained injuries on his head, chest and legs and further, he was in a shock and confusion and continued to perform his duty, at the time of checking at a place Sulur one passenger, who was alighting from the bus, was not having the ticket and on being questioned by the Checking Inspectors, he informed that he had given the ticket fare to the 2nd Respondent/Conductor, but he had not issued him the ticket and went away. 7. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation goes on to add by mentioning that the Petitioner /Corporation dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the 2nd Respondent/Conductor conducted a domestic enquiry after adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice. 8. In the Domestic Enquiry, the Petitioner/Transport Corporation examined the Checking Inspector as their witness and marked documents as Ex.M.1 to M.5. The 2nd Respondent/Delinquent marked two documents viz., Exs.W.1 and W.2. 8. In the Domestic Enquiry, the Petitioner/Transport Corporation examined the Checking Inspector as their witness and marked documents as Ex.M.1 to M.5. The 2nd Respondent/Delinquent marked two documents viz., Exs.W.1 and W.2. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman was found guilty of the charges as per Clause 14(d) and (ab) of the Standing Orders and in this regard, he submitted his report to the Petitioner. Thereupon, the Management issued a show cause notice dated 05.12.2003 accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the proposed punishment of 'dismissal from service'. The 2nd Respondent/Workman submitted his explanation in view of the fact that the 2nd Respondent had committed a serious misconduct within a short period of service and also taking note of the fact that the charges levelled against him were proved in the domestic enquiry and also the Management, after fulfilling the mandatory requirements under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dismissed the 2nd Respondent/Workman from service through an order dated 25.03.2005. 9. The sum and substance of the contention advanced on the side of the Transport Corporation is that the 2nd Respondent/Workman after receiving a sum of Rs.2.25 paise being the passenger fare after collecting the same had not issued ticket to the passenger, besides not counted the said sum of Rs.2.25 in the Transport Corporation's Account by making an entry in the invoice at the time of checking. 10. Yet another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Transport Corporation is that the 2nd Respondent/Workman had admitted before the Checking Officials that he had not issued ticket. The Enquiry Officer, after analysing all the material evidences available on record, had come to a categorical conclusion that the charges levelled against the 2nd Respondent were proved. 11. Added further, the 2nd Respondent/Workman had already signed in the statement before the Checking Officials that he had not issued the ticket to the passengers and no entry was made in the invoice and therefore, the issue of checking the cash bag had not arisen. 12. The last leg of submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Workman is that the 2nd Respondent/Workman was paid one month's wages at the time of his dismissal and that the Petitioner/ Management had simultaneously applied to the concerned Authority for approval of the dismissal of the 2nd Respondent. 12. The last leg of submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner/Workman is that the 2nd Respondent/Workman was paid one month's wages at the time of his dismissal and that the Petitioner/ Management had simultaneously applied to the concerned Authority for approval of the dismissal of the 2nd Respondent. Under such circumstances, it is not open to the 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai refused to accord approval for the dismissal of the workman. 13. In response, the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/ Delinquent contends that the 1st Respondent, in the impugned order dated 08.05.2009 in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005, had clearly opined that the Enquiry Officer in his report had not referred to an important aspect of the cash bag not being checked and if the cash bag had been checked, then, they could have found that there being no excess cash and that could have disproved the charges, as pleaded by the 2nd Respondent/Workman in the Written Statement). Further, it is the stand of the 2nd Respondent that if a cash bag of the 2nd Respondent/Conductor was checked, at the time of incident, there would have been every possibility to arrive at a proper conclusion if only an excess cash was found. If an excess cash was found, then, there would have been a possibility of misappropriation committed by the 2nd Respondent/Workman. 14. In effect, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent is that the 1st Respondent, after taking note of all the facts and circumstances of the case in an attendant fashion, has come to a clear-cut and categorical conclusion that the procedure of checking the cash bag was not done by the Petitioner/Transport Corporation at the time of incident and this omission on the part of the Officials of the Petitioner/Transport Corporation goes to the very root of the matter and as such, the proceedings of the 1st Respondent dated 08.05.2009 in A.P.No.41 of 2005 need not be disturbed by this Court at this distance point of time. 15. 15. It is to be borne in mind that the 2nd Respondent/Workman in his written statement during the domestic enquiry stated that he had only admitted the non-issuance of ticket as per invoice since there was no sale of Rs.2.25 ticket from the place where the passenger boarded the bus and further he had not admitted the factum of non-issuance of ticket after receipt of money. In fact, the 1st Respondent, in the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2009 in A.P.No.41 of 2005, had specifically observed that 'while this statement made was not controverted by any cross examination the enquiry officer's finding amounts to perversity' etc. 16. In this connection, this Court makes a useful reference to Section 33 (1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which enjoins as follows: "33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.-(1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before Inserted by Act 36 of 1964, S.18 (w.e.f. 19-12-1964)[an arbitrator or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall - (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute Inserted by Act 36 of 1964, S.18 (w.e.f. 19-12-1964) [or, where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman]- (a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the disptue, the conditions of service applicable to that workman immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge the punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman: Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer." 17. From the tenor of language employed in Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is evident that before an employer can discharge or dismiss a workman concerned in a pending dispute, for any misconduct connected with that dispute, he must obtain 'the express permission in writing of the Authority before which the proceeding is pending'. But, in respect of cases coming under Section Section 33(2) (b) of the Act, the employer first dismisses the workman and then seeks approval of the action already taken. However, such action will become effective only if approval is granted. If the approval is not accorded/refused, then, the order of dismissal will be inoperative in law. To put it differently, the order of dismissal is to be construed as non-est and workmen will never be taken to have been dismissed. In effect, a workman can legally claim to continue to be in employment notwithstanding the order passed by the employer dismissing or discharging him. 18. An order granting or refusing approval of the workman dismissal during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer in respect of an industrial dispute is admittedly a quasi-judicial power and undoubtedly, the said order must be a speaking order. 18. An order granting or refusing approval of the workman dismissal during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer in respect of an industrial dispute is admittedly a quasi-judicial power and undoubtedly, the said order must be a speaking order. The context of proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would spotlight that the three conditions enumerated in the said proviso viz., 1.Action of discharge or dismissal; 2.Payment of one month wages; 3.Making an application for approval of the action taken, are to be primarily complied with. To put it differently, the said conditions are mandatory and they are not directory in nature, as opined by this Court. 19. The ingredients of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are to be satisfied by the concerned authority if an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Section 33(2)(b) is to be operative. 20. In an application/petition under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act, the concerned Authority/Tribunal has every jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and hold that the enquiry was initiated. 21. It is to be pointed out that the aspect of 'cash bag being not checked to find out excess cash' goes to the root of the subject matter in issue, in the considered opinion of this Court. As a matter of fact, the omission in this regard is certainly a favourable circumstance in favour of the 2nd Respondent/Workman. 22. Be that as it may, as far as the present case is concerned, this Court, on going through the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case in a real perspective, comes to an inevitable conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai has passed the impugned order in Approval Petition No.41 of 2005 after taking into account all the relevant aspects of the case in a fair, proper and just manner and rightly held that the checking of the cash bag to find out whether there was any excess cash to arrive at a proper conclusion was not done etc., which does not suffer from any impropriety or material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. In short, this Court is in complete agreement with the view arrived at by the 1st Respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2009 in A.P.No.41 of 2005. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 23. In short, this Court is in complete agreement with the view arrived at by the 1st Respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2009 in A.P.No.41 of 2005. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own.